WASHINGTON – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice got her wish yesterday – the green light to testify in public before the 9/11 commission – and White House officials were confident she would effectively make the case that President Bush was vigilant against terrorism.

The historic deal clearing the way for Rice’s sworn testimony will put her in the spotlight as the wide-ranging probe gains steam and delves into explosive charges from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke that the White House didn’t take the threat from Osama bin Laden seriously.

No date has been set for Rice’s appearance, although officials said it would likely come at the end of next week.

Bush’s startling turnaround comes after weeks of steadfast White House refusals to allow Rice to testify in public and under oath because of the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of government.

Almost lost amid news over Rice yesterday was Bush’s dramatic decision to make himself and Vice President Dick Cheney available for questioning, in private and not under oath, before the bipartisan 10-member panel – something that not even then-President Lyndon Johnson did during the Warren Commission investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

About allowing Rice to testify, Bush said yesterday in a four-minute statement he read from the White House:

“I consider it necessary to gaining a complete picture of the months and years that proceeded the murder of our fellow citizens on Sept. 11 2001.”

He did not take reporter’s questions.

“To prevent further attacks, we must understand the methods of our enemies,” Bush added.

“Our nation must never forget the loss or the lessons of September the 11th, and we must never assume that the danger has passed.”

In authorizing Rice’s appearance so “the public record is full and complete,” the president acknowledged the extraordinary circumstances of the attacks and obtained an agreement from the commission that the principal of the constitutional separation of powers be protected.

Commission members had initially opposed the White House’s request that Bush and Cheney appear at the same time, but agreed to it in order to win a concession from the administration: that all 10 members be allowed to ask questions.

Commissioner Tim Roemer, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana, said Rice should address Clarke’s charges – including one that the Bush administration took too long to develop its anti-terrorism strategy.

A group of relatives of Sept. 11 victims said they were pleased the commission would be able to question Rice in public, but lamented the commission would not do so with other White House officials.

The startling White House flip-flop on Rice was immediately praised by both sides of the aisle in Congress, as well as by Commission Chairman Tom Kean and others who said it was essential to ensuring a complete and through probe.

“We’re very happy. Very grateful,” said Kean, who added that not having Rice “would have left a hole.”

Rice had previously spoken to the commission for about four hours behind closed doors.

The panel also is slated to interview former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore in coming weeks, although that will be behind closed doors.

“I welcome the decision by the president today to allow Dr. Rice to appear publicly and under oath before the 9/11 commission,” said Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine).

Commissioner Slade Gorton, a former Republican senator from Washington state, said he was delighted at Bush’s change of heart, but he added: “I think the White House would have been better off if it had made the agreements sooner.”

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said, “The constant reluctance on the part of the administration to come forward and tell the truth makes one scratch one’s head in wonderment . . . I’m glad the stonewalling has stopped.”

“It was an act of face-saving,” he added.

Rice, who in recent weeks held several briefings for reporters, had been eager for a chance to appear before the commission and answer Clarke’s bombshell allegations that she and Bush overlooked warnings that bin Laden was plotting to strike America.

Aboard Air Force One yesterday, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush made up his mind over the weekend to turn Rice loose “provided that we can uphold this important principle. It’s important to protect the principle of separation of powers between the executive and legislative branch.”

McClellan added that Bush feared that restricting Rice from investigators had turned into “more focus on the process, rather than the substance.”

Kean said that while negotiations about testimony had been going on for weeks, the deal for Bush, Cheney and Rice to testify was hammered out with White House lawyer Alberto Gonzales on Monday night.

One of the issues the commission will look into is conflicting statements between Rice and Clarke. “We’re going to try and clear . . . these discrepancies as best we can,” said Kean.

Separately, Kean told The Post yesterday that former Mayor Rudy Giuliani will headline the commission’s May 18 hearing into New York’s response to the hijackings.

And he said he agreed with a story in yesterday’s Post, in which fellow Commissioner Bob Kerrey argued that one key question for Clinton will be his decision not to aggressively respond to bin Laden’s declaration of war on America.

In addition, commission Executive Director Phil Zelikow said his staff will issue four more reports in coming months, reviewing law-enforcement and intelligence collection, response to threats, foreign intelligence collection and intelligence collection outside the United States. Four reports were issued last week.

Among the witnesses for next month’s hearings are former FBI Director Louis Freeh, current director Robert Mueller, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, who has been sick recently.

Zelikow noted that the White House has worked quickly to declassify the commission’s interim reports, approving all four that were released last week within about 10 days.

On the hot seat

10 possible questions for Condoleezza Rice from the 9/11 panel and her possible answers:

Q: Why did you refuse for so long to testify?

A: I had a duty to protect the constitutional separation between the executive and legislative branches.

Q: Richard Clarke says you did not view terrorism as urgent. How do you respond?

A: That’s wrong. I considered terrorism both “important and urgent.”

Q: What did you do differently from President Bill Clinton?

A: The White House was developing “a more robust strategy” to wipe out al Qaeda.

Q: What other issues took your attention away from al Qaeda?

A: Among other things, the White House was dealing with pilots who were in danger in the Iraqi no-fly zones, and we were building new relationships with Russia and China.

Q: What do you say to Clarke’s claim he was demoted and couldn’t talk to Bush about his concerns?

A: Wrong. Clarke was not pushed aside.

Q: What do you say about Clarke’s statement that he warned the incoming Bush administration about terrorism?

A: I have no idea what he’s talking about.

Q: The commission says you resisted arming the Northern Alliance to fight the Taliban. Why?

A: We wanted to go after the Taliban by arming not just the Northern Alliance, but also the southern Afghanistan tribes, so that you put real pressure on them the Taliban.

Q: The CIA says it didn’t have the authority to kill Osama bin Laden. Why not?

A: CIA Director George Tenet never came to me or President Bush, saying, “I don’t have enough authorities to do what I need to do.”

Q: Did the Aug. 6 memo from Clarke warn about the possibility that hijackers might try to seize control of aircraft?

A: There’s mention of hijacking for the purpose of getting the release of prisoners.

A: It’s arrogant in the extreme for Clark to try to read my body language. I’m a specialist in international politics. I find the question insulting.

(Compiled by Vince Morris; answers based on Rice’s 24 March briefing with reporters)

————————————————————————————————

Excerpts from White House letter to the 9/11 commission

‘As we discussed last night, the president is prepared, subject to the conditions set forth below, to agree to the request of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States for public testimony, under oath, by the assistant to the president for national security affairs, Dr. Condoleezza Rice …

The president has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the commission and instructed the executive branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the commission …

We continue to believe, as I advised you by letter dated March 25, 2004, that the principles underlying the constitutional separation of powers counsel strongly against such public testimony, and that Dr. Rice’s testimony before the commission can occur only with recognition that the events of September 11, 2001, present the most extraordinary and unique circumstances, and with conditions and assurances designed to limit harm to the ability of future presidents to receive candid advice …

Nevertheless, the president recognizes the truly unique and extraordinary circumstances underlying the commission’s responsibility to prepare a detailed report on the facts and circumstances of the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001.’

9/11 commission’s response to White House announcement

‘The commission welcomes the decision of the president and the vice president to meet in one joint private session with all 10 commissioners. We also commend the president for his decision to accept the commission’s request for public testimony, under oath, by the assistant to the president for national security affairs, Dr. Condoleezza Rice.

These decisions represent a significant contribution by the president to the work of the commission, consistent with our mandate to “provide a full and complete accounting” of the terrorist attacks of September 11.

The president has consistently stated a policy of strong support for the commission and instructed the executive branch to provide unprecedented and extraordinary access to the commission.

His decisions today reflect that policy of strong support, and we welcome them. We agree with the observation by the president’s counsel that Dr. Rice’s appearance before the commission is in response to the special circumstances presented by the events of September 11 and the commission’s unique mandate and should not be viewed as a precedent for future requests for public testimony by White House officials.’